Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The State Of A.P. vs Sopeti Chandra Mouli Mouli on 21 August, 2024
Author: K.Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
APHC010665462016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3486]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1188/2016
Between:
The State Of A.p. ...APPELLANT
AND
Sopeti Chandra Mouli Mouli ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Apellant:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
Counsel for the Respodent:
1. G VENKATA REDDY
The Court made the following:
2
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.1188 OF 2016
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1188 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy)
This Criminal Appeal by the appellant-State is directed
against the judgment, dated 04.07.2007 in Sessions Case
No.76 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam whereby the
respondent/accused was found guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 304 Part-II and 201 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and accordingly he was
convicted of the said offences and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence
punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC and to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a
fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for
a period of three months for the offence punishable under
Section 201 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
2. The substance of the charges framed against the
respondent/sole accused are that on 24.08.2005 in his
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.1188 OF 2016
house at Haridasupuram village, the accused did commit
murder by intentionally causing death of his mother
Smt.Sopeti Eeswaramma (hereinafter referred to, as 'the
deceased') by way of electrocution with live electric wire,
placing it around her neck and thereby committed an offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC; that on the same date,
time and place mentioned above, he committed theft of gold
ornaments present on the person of the deceased after killing
her by electrocution with a dishonest intention and took
them away and thereby committed an offence punishable
under Section 379 IPC; and that on the same day, time and
place mentioned above, the accused having committed the
offence of murder and theft, caused the evidence of those
offences to disappear by burying the dead body of the
deceased in the backyard of his house in order to screen
himself being an offender from legal punishments for the said
acts and thereby committed an offence punishable under
Section 201 IPC.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows.
P.W.2 is father of the accused. Basing on the statement
of P.W.2, P.W.1-Panchayat Secretary of Haridasupuram
lodged a report with police. Accused is youngest son of the
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.1188 OF 2016
deceased and P.W.2. He is an unemployee, married and
blessed with two children. He ran a cloth business and
incurred loss to a tune of Rs.60,000/-. His parents cleared
some portion of his debts. Two months prior to the incident,
wife and younger son of the accused went to his in-laws'
house. P.W.2 went to Parlakhemundi to look after his sister.
The accused, his elder son and the deceased were in the
house on 24.08.2005. In order to pledge gold ornaments of
the deceased, the accused moved the matter before the
deceased on 24.08.2005. But, the deceased did not agree
therefor and abused the accused for his laziness. Having felt
insulted and determined to secure the gold ornaments of the
deceased with an evil intention, the accused decided to kill
the deceased, secured a rubber glove from L.W.12-
K.Rukmangadha Rao and small bundle of binding wire from
his house, connected it to end of service wire and other end
of the service wire to a switch board and placed it around
neck of the deceased while she was cutting vegetables and
killed her with electrocution. The accused removed gold
ornaments present on the dead body and buried the same in
the backyard of the house with an intention to screen
evidence. Later, he pledged the gold ornaments for
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.1188 OF 2016
Rs.30,000/- with P.W.8 and clear his debts due to P.Ws.4 to
6 and others. On the next day, with the help of P.W.10, the
accused dumped gravel at the backyard of the house and
buried the dead body of the deceased. On 27.8.2005, he left
the house, by handing over the keys of the house to P.W.7
and asked him to give the same to his father P.W.2 whenever
he comes and stated that he was going to his father-in-law's
house to get back his family and returned home on
31.8.2005 with family. When family members asked him
about the deceased, the accused stated that she left the
house on getting dejection of dispute by him for money. The
family members suspected the accused as whereabouts of
the deceased were not known for two weeks and questioned
him, and the accused admitted his guilt. The dead body of
the deceased was noticed in the backyard of their house
covered by soil and smelting foul smell. Basing on the report
of P.W.1, P.W.14 registered the case in crime No.65 of 2005
of Nandigam police station, and after completion of
investigation, laid the charge sheet.
4. In support of the case of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 17 were
examined and Exs.P1 to P24 were got marked, besides case
properties M.Os.1 to 9. After completion of prosecution side
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.1188 OF 2016
evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC
to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against
him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the
same. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on
behalf of defence. After appreciating the evidence on record,
the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the
accused, as stated supra. Challenging the same, the present
Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State.
5. Now, the point that arises for determination is whether
the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the
appellant/accused for the offences with which he was
charged and whether the convictions and sentences recorded
by the learned Sessions Judge are sustainable or not ?
6. The Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the
appellant/State contended that though there are no eye-
witnesses to the occurrence of the incident in question and
the entire case rests on the circumstantial evidence, the
circumstances relied on, by the prosecution do form a chain,
so complete that within all human probability, the crime was
committed by the respondent/accused alone and none else.
He submitted that there is recovery of material objects at the
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.1188 OF 2016
instance of the respondent/accused and extra judicial
confession made by the respondent/accused before his own
father P.W.2. He submits that the trial Court, having
believed the extra judicial confession and the circumstances,
erred in convicting and sentencing the respondent/accused
of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II IPC,
instead of Section 302 IPC. He submitted that there is
evidence that the accused and the deceased were last seen
together. Hence, he prays to allow the Criminal Appeal and
convict and sentence the respondent/accused of the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent/
accused contended that the deceased is own mother of the
accused and there was no intention on the part of the
accused to commit her murder. He submits that there is no
direct evidence to establish that the accused is the assailant
of the deceased, and the extra judicial confession allegedly
made by the accused to P.W.2 cannot be relied on, to convict
the accused for the charges levelled against him. He submits
that P.W.2 gave a different version in his evidence then the
one mentioned in the alleged extrajudicial confession, and in
the absence of any intention, the learned Sessions Judge
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.1188 OF 2016
rightly convicted and sentenced him. Hence, he prayed to
dismiss the Criminal Appeal.
8. P.W.13, who worked as the Mandal Revenue Officer,
Nandigam mandal, deposed that at request of police, he
conducted exhumation proceedings in the backyard of house
of the deceased with the assistance of villagers and the dead
body of the deceased was exhumed and identified by P.W.2,
her husband, as that of the deceased. He further deposed
that thereafter, he conducted inquest over the dead body of
the deceased under Ex.P4-inquest report dated 13.09.2005.
9. P.W.12, who worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area
Hospital, Tekkali, deposed that on 08.09.2005, he conducted
autopsy over the dead body of the deceased at the place
where the dead body was exhumed. He deposed that
identification marks could not be identified as skin was
peeled off; dead body was moderately built, etc. He found a
linear electric burn mark width of 1 mm to 2 mm, all around
the neck, except posterior part. He opined that cause of
death of the deceased is due to electric shock resulting in
respiratory failure and cardiac arrest. Ex.P17 is the
postmortem examination report. From the evidence of
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.1188 OF 2016
P.Ws.12 and 13 and the recitals in Exs.P4 and P17,
homicidal nature of death of the deceased is established.
10. On a perusal of the entire evidence on record shows
that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. Entire case
of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. When a case
rests upon circumstantial evidence, law is well settled that all
the circumstances must firmly and unerringly point out the
guilt towards the accused; that all the circumstances, if
taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that
within all human probability, the crime was committed by
the accused and none else. All the circumstances should not
only be consistent with the case of prosecution but also
should be inconsistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision
reported in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of
Maharashtra1 wherein it is held at para No.153 as under:
"A close analysis of this decision would show that the
following conditions must be fulfilled before a case
against an accused can be said to be fully established
:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that
the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and
AIR 1984 SC 1622
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.1188 OF 2016
not 'may be' established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may
be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as
was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade
v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : (AIR
1973 SC 2622) where the following observations
were made :
"certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused
must be and not merely may be guilty before a
Court can convict and the mental distance between
'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that
is to say, they should not be explainable on any
other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused."
The various links in the chain, when taken in
isolation, might not connect the accused with commission of
the crime, but when taken together may unmistakably point
out the guilt of the accused. The Court has to see the
cumulative effect of all the proved circumstances. The
circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must
be complete and incapable of explanation on any other
hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.1188 OF 2016
Bearing the above principles in mind, it has to be seen
whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
11. P.W.1-Panchayat Secretary lodged report Ex.P1 to
police basing on the statement of P.W.2, who is father of the
accused. According to the case of prosecution, the accused
is youngest son of the deceased and P.W.2. On 24.08.2005,
when no other person was present in the house, the accused
pressurized his mother (the deceased) to give her gold
ornaments for pledging the same for clearing the debts
contracted by him. As she refused to give the ornaments, the
accused secured a rubber glove from L.W.12-
K.Rukmangadha Rao and small bundle of binding wire from
his house, connected it to end of service wire and other end
of the service wire to a switch board and placed it around
neck of the deceased while she was cutting vegetables and
killed her with electrocution. The accused removed gold
ornaments present on the dead body and buried the same in
the backyard of the house with an intention to screen
evidence. Later, he pledged the gold ornaments for
Rs.30,000/- with P.W.8 and clear his debts due to P.Ws.4 to
6 and others. When family members asked him about the
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.1188 OF 2016
deceased, the accused stated that she left the house on
getting dejection of dispute by him for money. The family
members suspected the accused as whereabouts of the
deceased were not known for two weeks and questioned him,
and the accused admitted his guilt. The dead body of the
deceased was noticed in the backyard of their house covered
by soil and smelting foul smell.
12. P.W.2 is husband of the deceased and father of the
accused. P.W.15 is brother of the accused and another son
of P.W.2 and the deceased. According to the prosecution,
pursuant to the confession made by the accused before
P.W.2, who is none other than his father, P.W.1 set the
criminal law into motion. Coming to evidence, P.W.2 deposed
that the accused confessed his guilt before him stating that
there was exchange of words in between him and the
deceased with regard to money matter, during which he
slapped the deceased, on which she fell down on electric
stove and got electric shock, and died instantaneously, and
that being afraid of the same, he buried the dead body in the
backyard of their house. P.W.2 further deposed that he
himself lodged a complaint to police narrating the aforesaid
facts. It is his further evidence that after lodging the report
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.1188 OF 2016
to police, police examined him during which he stated the
entire case as stated above. He denied a suggestion that he
stated the entire facts to P.W.1, who in turn reduced his
statement into writing in Ex.P1 report and lodged the same
to police. On this aspect, P.W.2 was declared hostile. During
cross-examination, nothing has been elicited by the
prosecution to discredit the aforesaid version deposed by
P.W.2 in his examination-in-chief.
13. P.W.15 is another son of P.W.2 and brother of the
accused. He too deposed that the accused confessed before
him and P.W.2 that as the deceased did not give money, he
got enraged and pushed her, on which she fell on electric
stove and died due to electric shock. He further deposed
that he was sitting outside the police station when his father
(PW2) submitted a written report with his signature. On this
aspect, P.W.15 was declared hostile. During cross-
examination, nothing has been elicited by the prosecution to
discredit the aforesaid version deposed by P.W.15 in his
examination-in-chief.
14. A perusal of the evidence on record goes to show that
there is inconsistency in the version given by P.W.1 and the
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.1188 OF 2016
version given by P.Ws.2 and 15, as to who gave report to
police. P.W.14-Sub Inspector of Police supported version of
P.W.1. A perusal of evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that
there is inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.1 as to where he
drafted the report. He gave two different versions with regard
to the same stating at one place that he drafted Ex.P1 in
police station and at another place that he drafted Ex.P1 in
the house of P.W.2. Therefore, there is any amount of
ambiguity as to who set the criminal law into motion by
lodging report to police. Having observed P.W.2 during
course of his examination, the trial Court found that P.W.2 is
well educated and giving answers in English, and there was
no necessity for P.W.2 to go all the way to Boddapadu in the
mid night and narrate facts to P.W.1, and rightly held that
the report submitted by P.W.2 to police was suppressed and
Ex.P1 lodged on 08.09.2005 appears to have been pressed
into service to suit the prosecution case. The report dated
07.09.2005 given by P.W.2 has not seen the light of the day.
15. The other circumstance is that the accused discharging
the debts to P.Ws.4 to 6 by pledging his mother's gold
ornaments with P.W.8. Though P.W.8 deposed that the
accused pledged the gold ornaments M.Os.1 and 2 with him
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.1188 OF 2016
and took Rs.30,000/- from him on 24.8.2005 or 25.8.2005,
P.Ws.4 to 6 did not support case of the prosecution that the
accused repaid their respective debts on the date of death of
the deceased i.e. on 24.08.2005. Therefore, the prosecution
failed to establish the circumstance of the accused
discharging debts to P.Ws.4 to 6 subsequent to death of the
deceased.
16. This is a case basing on circumstantial evidence and
the extra judicial confession made by the accused. The
deceased is none other than mother of the deceased and wife
of P.W.2. P.W.2 left the house on 24.08.2005 and came back
on 27.08.2005 and found the deceased not available in the
house. Admittedly, on the fateful day, the accused, his son
and the deceased were only present in their house.
Thereafter, the deceased could not be seen. Therefore, it is
for the accused to explain about whereabouts of the
deceased. In such a case, it is quite natural for P.Ws.2 and
15, who are none other than husband and son of the
deceased, to question the accused. Since they are his close
relatives, it is quite natural for the accused to confess his
guilt before them. Therefore, the extrajudicial confession
given by the accused before P.Ws.2 and 15 is acceptable.
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.1188 OF 2016
Dead body of the deceased was exhumed from the backyard
of their own house pursuant to the extrajudicial confession of
the accused. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 13 and 16, coupled
with recitals in Ex.P3, substantiates the same. P.W.11 took
photographs of the dead body under Exs.P15 and P16.
17. P.Ws.2 and 15 consistently deposed that the accused
stated to them that there some was exchange of words in
between the accused and the deceased with regard to money
matter, during which the accused slapped the deceased, on
which she fell down on electric stove and got electric shock,
and died instantaneously, and that being afraid of the same,
he buried the dead body in the backyard of their house.
They withstood the test of cross-examination. Their evidence
is cogent and convincing. There is no other evidence
available on record to come to a different conclusion. From
the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 15, coupled with the extrajudicial
confession of the accused, it is established that the accused
is the assailant of the deceased. Since there was a scuffle
between the deceased and the accused prior to the incident,
and in a fit of anger, the incident had occurred, resulting in
death of the deceased. Afraid of the same, the accused
buried the dead body of the deceased in the backyard of their
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.1188 OF 2016
house. The learned Sessions Judge erred in holding that it is
an accidental death occurred due to rash and negligent act of
the accused, but not homicidal death, and that the
prosecution failed to establish that the accused killed the
deceased intentionally or knowingly by electrocution as
alleged by it. However, the learned Sessions Judge rightly
found the respondent/accused guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 304 Part-II and 201 IPC and
sentenced him.
18. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed,
confirming the judgment dated 04.07.2007 in Sessions Case
No.76 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District and
Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam.
-----------------------------------------
JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
------------------------------------------------
JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
21.08.2024
DRK
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.1188 OF 2016
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1188 OF 2016
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy)
21.08.2024
DRK
